| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2013-10-10 14:24:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1381415066.84508.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I actually had the thought that it might be something we'd integrate
> *into* initdb. So you'd do initdb --system-memory 8GB or something
> like that and it would do the rest. That'd be slick, at least IMHO.
How would you handle the case that the machine (whether physical or
a VM) later gets more RAM? That's certainly not unheard of with
physical servers, and with VMs I'm not sure that the database
server would necessarily go through a stop/start cycle for it.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2013-10-10 14:40:14 | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |
| Previous Message | MauMau | 2013-10-10 14:01:52 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |